tv [untitled] November 18, 2010 5:00am-5:30am PST
so in summary, sort of cost recovery, the fees alone don't cover the cost of a bus. in comparison, it does -- we probably -- we don't think that given that charging the state the maximum doesn't seem reasonable, especially given public transportation options in comparison to other districts, especially the high cost of living in san francisco. partial cost model, fees may not cover the cost of the bus but the fees may offset administrative costs of this program. >> ok. we have questions. i'm going to start by just saying a couple of things. one, one thing that is not accounted for here is that we have lots and lots of kids, as we know from our review over the transportation system, who don't
ride the bus in the morning and who ride the bus in the afternoon. so i think we should -- i actually think we should just put that into our information so that the public knows that you know, it looks like -- i mean when you say this is very aggressive, that seems to be the biggest weak thans we have here. the other issue, i presume somebody else is going to bring up. i think that the board is interested in some kind of analysis about what might be the workability of just charging to take people to after-school programs, not so much charging to get them to school but to -- and that's by the way why i think kids ride the bus in the afternoon but not the morning. they can get to school but parents need a way for them to get to their after school programs. i understand -- i mean, i personally am very interested in using our transportation plan implementation as if we need more as an incentive to actually
get the realignment after school done, and we hope that will happen in the phasing in process. i know that that is something we have talked about wanting to know what the cost would be just for charging people for what we have some incentive agreement that we can't afford to do it all, which is trands port people to off -- transport people to off-school off-site programs. >> i wanted to know -- i just wanted to know, it looks like do they run their own buses or do they contract out, the district that charges nothing? >> i think they have a contract
but i'm not certain. >> so does anyone know that information, whether or not, so she thinks that contract out. is it true? i'm just wondering do they contract out first student to -- i'm just sort of wondering how they are able to do it with zero because they get the same funding we do. >> what berkeley does is that they provide -- they do provide bus transportation, but from my understanding from looking at the information that they posted in their website, it is -- it is limited general land transportation within the zones that they have created. so it's not -- and it is for students within that zone to go to a school within that zone. if thoge a school outside of that -- if they go to a school outside of that zone, they don't qualify for transportation.
so it is extremely limited for land >> i know this because i went to school in the berkeley school system. they can do a lot more trips with a smaller number of buses. >> also they use a major part of their desegregation to do this so that's why they do it. >> i'm looking at, for example, considerably less than what we were offering so i'm just wondering, that is pretty spread out and they probably have a lot of kids on free lunches also. >> yeah. almost all of the school districts, when we did our research,ite's not as if they have a wide, extensive school bus transportation network. they have limited -- they have limited routes and you work within those routes. so -- so -- i'm -- yes.
>> so we don't know whether or not they are -- run their own bus systems? maybe paul has an answer? paul? >> how about san jose? do we know about san jose? do they contract out too? no. they are doing first student also? yeah, i'm just wondering if some districts run their own and are able to do it at a lower cost or is it that they are contracted out, is it at a higher cost? not that i'm saying that we should run our own, but i'm just saying for cost analysis and for ssts, what does that look like and have we ever done that before? did we used to run our own buses? no. basically it is first students contract.
so maybe we could look at that and -- district who is run their own and see if they are doing it more cost effectively and effectively. we got a lot of land to park a lot of buses. that's why i'm wondering why our costs would be more expensive. thanks. >> i wanted to try to respond to your question about after school. we did try to look, provide you with some information about what, in terms of charging students family fees what it might -- i may point you to -- 16. so where -- this is looking at -- if we were to add a bus to
support an after school program, so if we wanted to add a bus to our fleet to support after school -- to support a run from a bunch of schools to an after school program or to -- we couldn't cover the costs. we couldn't cover the costs of adding a bus by the fees collected from the students who ride that bus, even with 100%, all 63 students paying the maximum, you wouldn't cover the cost of a bus. that is just in terms of fees per student. that is not talking about if we were to charge fees to an institution. >> commissioner? >> i mean, that is -- i'm sure that is true, from a system-wide perspective. i want to challenge that assumption because we're doing
-- we're making an assumption that based on the number of free and reduced priced students in our system that we would have a small number of students who would actually be paying full price, whatever fees we charge them. have we looked -- a lot of schools that have concentrations of free, reduced priced students also have on site after school and conversely, a lot of schools that are transporting skids to off site after school -- kids to off site after school programs, i'm just wondering if maybe another way to analyze this might be to take some individual schools where we are transporting significant number s of kids after school and break it down based on real data instead of the systemwide look that you're taking.
>> i would still look at the chart because this chart doesn't necessarily show -- doesn't -- i mean, if all 63 students were paying, you still -- you get those -- you -- >> you get a sense. >> that's for roundtrip. if you're only transporting them in the afternoon to after school, you get half as much. $252. >> there are some school districts that do charge -- have a one-way fare and there are some school districts that just assume if you're going to have transportation we're going to charge you a roundtrip fare because their routes are the routes and you participate in those routes and we as a school district can begin to have those discussions about how we could -- >> i know that the routes are
not the routes if you're only taking the kids to after school programs because if they come to school from bus they are coming from someplace else, not from the after school program. we have routes now that we don't have in the morning that we have in the afternoon, lots of them, don't we? >> there is a mix of routes that have stops where we're making stops in the afternoon. some of them are at intersections. some of them are at locations. the locations could be considered to be a day care, but whether or not the students getting on or off that bus are going to the day care is another issue. >> that's not point. the point is that we're not picking them up there in the morning. >> some we are. >> ok.
>> i think -- i guess maybe i'm -- the position i would take in all of this, can we -- i wouldn't be thinking in terms if we were to offer a particular route, whether or not the particular route or drop-off would generate enough money to justify it. to me, that is the wrong approach. i would look at the whole system. and if -- if we're going to have the same number of buses no matter what it is and we could somehow arrange for certain stops to happen and some of those stops that happen to be in front of a day care, is there then the question i would ask then is can we still -- still
charge those and recover some of the costs versusing in nothing. in other words if, we ended up in to tality of developing off so different places that were day care and raise $150,000 and at some point, the administrative costs wouldn't cost that much and we just charge, not for roundtrip or anything, i would be still interested because that would be $150,000 we wouldn't have. >> i just want to be sure. what you are saying would be to look at a private day care and look at that private day care in terms of the number of stops we're currently making at that day care and assess that day care a set fee for the bus making that stop. >> i'm not saying that but that
is a good idea too. [laughter] >> i'm saying those kids are being dropped off there and they can afford to pay for it, pay for it. in other words, if we take our existing system and nothing changes and all i'm saying to you is for those kids that are getting -- getting a drive from a school to a private day care and they could afford -- the family gets charged, that is a net gain of revenues for us. that's all i'm saying. it may not pay for a bus but we don't need an extra bus. it is already there. >> ok. i have a couple of questions. not about after school care necessarily but just about the -- i need you to repeat for me or tell me when you think we can as specifically as possible tell
people what routes we propose to not have next year? so that we can start telling public -- but what i want to know, i think we need that in our timeline. we need to tell people when you apply you're going to know this and we're also going to need to have some sort of summarizing things. in addition to that, i have kind of related to that exen we -- this is not on the agenda for tomorrow. it will come in the december meeting but we're going to need -- i understand that in the agenda the original motion will appear as well as the substantive motion but i think we're going to need that for public prior to that, so i think if we can -- either possibly materials from this meeting can be on the website and it should have the original motion and the
substitute motion because if you only have something that you say is the substitute motion and it is there, people are going to want to know what has changed and one following the other so they can check on that. then i want you to try to -- if you can, give us as many specifics as you can about what the timeline might be but more than that, tell us how we can public lissize the timeline so that people can know this. first of all, i just think we need to be telling people as much as possible now, they are proposing transportation changes for next year. so don't make your choices based on prudgeses that the transportation will be the same --. this is one of those things a people have since we have -- as we have reviewed the historical
many times, not only have they not paid attention to that. they just presume that things going stay the same. all we have done is add buses, not take them away. i think this is a huge thing for the public, for the family s that aregoing to use the system and they are unprepared for this, no matter how much we have been saying it, we can't say it too much. >> i want to echo that and i want to say -- has this gone out -- do the administrators know this where they can start warning their families? i continue to feel like we should at the very least if we're eliminating after school transportation for families that we should make some guarantees to them so this they are going to have after school care tr their children if they are preparing for that and they are already prepared for a school.
my suggestion was at the last meeting was we should guarantee them on site but if we can't do that, we at least have to guarantee them some ufsfd care. we can't leave them with no options. we can't do that. >> excuse me, commissioner. are you talking about families that go to privately run after school programs or -- >> because when there is not enough capacity at school sites. it is one thing to say we're going to eliminate transportation at an off site program whether -- none of them are private. they are all nonprofit. the point is -- if there is not capacity at their current school site and they are going to that school site next year, they need something. most people who -- not always, but most people who get -- who take transportation to an off site program do so because there isn't capacity at their school site for them to enroll in
either low cost or any -- >> oh, really? actually that wasn't my experience. my experience was they choose to go to an off site b then if we don't have the capacity to do the after school program for everybody, which i believe is sort of the goal to do now, but if we don't have it for everybody, that we should be giving the transportation to privately run after school programs?
we want to make sure that the transportation policy is aligned with that and supportive of that and in terms of so at this point we can't give any more specifics but for the question about the timeline and what information we can share and how, we are going to be presenting information of the enrollment fair on saturdays, there is a couple of workshops about transportation. the feedback that you have given us today is going to get folded into these documents. asking folks put it on -- and just kind of getting it out as broadly as possible. we're presenting information at the select committee on the 18th
talking to the -- on the 16th and we have met with and talked with a lot of individuals from different city organization m.t.a., the biking coalition, the department of public health, they are on a mailing list that we have. we're going to have another meeting with them in a few weeks. at the same time, the questions that we have and if you look at the last -- the last page of the document, it is -- it has -- the first piece is alternatives to yellow bus transportation because through our discussions, we have learned about a about at parent-initiated alternatives. for example, there is a share a ride, a 5.1 school massing -- school matching program. instead of saying 555.org, it whoudshould say 511.
some of our students to car shares through that. there are also walking school buses -- and by trains. -- and bike trains. over the next couple of months, or by december, we will inform the community about the objectives. because we do not have information available -- as soon as review, we will share that. in the meantime, with each week that goes by, we will have more information. the questions outlined on pages 6 and 7 will give us specific information, like which schools we should continue maintaining existing routes because they help create diversity. we will be able to a identify those by answering questions away. speaking about schools that are under unrolled and racially isolated -- >> what are you talking about? >> on page four of the
documentation that is the transportation policy. >> there is no page 7. >> it says page 4 of 6. >> i know. but you said page 6 and 7. [laughter] >> i apologize. port each of the goals in the board policy, there are a set of questions we will use to get this data that will name schools and give us information that will help them figure out routes and buses that we should establish. as soon as that information is available, we will make that information public. we are really trying right now to get answers to these questions. looking at the english loaner programs, where do the spanish- english lerner's live compared to where the spanish programs could serve them? is there a match with current transportation routes? do you need transportation? do they live near the program? all of that will help us get an understanding of where we should think about creating routes. it also makes it clear that what
we are considering at the routes -- we are looking at english lerner's having access to english lerner programs. -- we are looking at english learners having access to english learner programs. we are looking for students with low test scores to have access to accelerated programs. >> i want to be clear with you and with the board that i am not saying that i do not agree with the direction we are going, with the policy change. what i am saying is that there are a lot of families, and as we get deeper into the new policy there will be fewer and fewer of them who will make arrangements and decisions under an old system that is now going to change. those families are depending -- or believing the arrangements they made are going to go forward. if we are going to jerk the rug out from under them, we need to tell them as soon as possible, at least to help them with some kind of contingency, because
these are families that both parents are working full time and they are expecting their kids are cared for until 5:00 or 6:00 at these programs. >> thank you, commissioner. i think there are two things to share. we are doing everything we can to make sure we are not pulling the rug out. one is that we are having a plan. we are not imagining that a long-term vision will happen tomorrow. we are looking at gradually phasing out stops. we are looking to identify who the individual students are who are riding the buses. we do not know that. we are going to try to capture that data. then we will be able to engage in direct conversation with them and get more feedback about them instead of a speculative. there are two approaches on the table. >> i am sorry to keep going back to the after-school issue, but it is a big issue. what is our plan for communicating with the providers? it seems to me one of the first things we should do is that we know what -- mr. darden kept
response a while ago act to legalize this statement. -- mr. garden's response a while ago actually belies this statement. if we do not know what students need day care, we do not know all those things. but we can ask all our parents about that. we do have a core of major afterschool providers that are institutional organizations that we should be talking to, and they should be talking to their clients. they could be talking to us or other transportation providers about other ways to get kids from public schools to their programs. frankly, i just wanted to -- i think that the board and the public needs to know more. i just want to put in a pitch
for us finding out as much as we can about the realignment as early as we can, because that would be good to know. [laughter] what we -- i am hoping that this is going to get better over time. but i do not -- it is november. it is not made. but still. -- it is not may. but still. we are telling people we are going to change some of our transportation program next year. we should have as much information as we can, and show should the families we serve. any other -- and so should the families research. any other questions? commissioner fewer: a lot of parents are used to having transportation even getting kids to school in the morning. they have really depended on
this for years. even some of our high school students. i think getting the word out as quickly as possible. because it leaves not just after school parents of elementary school children who get their kids to an after-school program. it is even our teenagers who are taking the high school buses that we are going to eliminate. i know that parents also, you know, in some cases, their children will be on a muni bus for up to 2 below hours a day, or even more than that. -- for up to two hours a day, or even more than that. i mean logistics of raising a family in san francisco. commissioner wynns: is there any member of the public would like to testify on this issue? please come up to the microphone and speaker quickly. i would like to get through this as quickly as possible and go to
the next item. >> ruth bucket, parent advisory council to the board of education. there was a committee of folks working on this when the question first came up almost two years ago. we have been meeting with district staff to talk about the community engagement process at this point in time. i do want to highlight some of the agreements of on some things the commissioners are saying about the need to get the word out to families as immediately as possible, and to make it possible for people who want to to be part of the conversation about the policy part, and not just waiting to find out about is their record to be affected -- their route to be affected. we have to give people an opportunity to weigh in on the policy part of it. i do not know the status of the "school times" publication that comes out a couple of times a year.
i am hoping that what the packet suggested was a little box of information about key policy things that are going to be changing, that were in discussion this year, and ways for families to get involved in those conversations. that publication is something that we feel already exists. it is already in three languages. if we could just get the schools to send it home with the students of the families actually saw that information, it would go a long way to getting a lot of information about what has happened in the district home in ways that a community organization has access to all 50,000 students. that publication could get home if principlealsals and school sf made it a priority to get it home. that would be a concrete suggestion we have made a lot of times and want to continue encouraging. thanks. >>